THAT WAS THE DAY THAT WAS

brexitBreitbrexbrex1brex3brex4brex6brex7brex8brex9brex10brex11beexbrex5brex13brex12brex2

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “THAT WAS THE DAY THAT WAS”

    1. LOL.

      Here’s something you might like to get involved in, Niko, given your experiences with your family.

      They’re looking for people to contribute ideas about how Scottish Social Security would work best for them.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Fantastic collection of clips and images.

    The idiocy of the UK Government knows no bounds. The A50 letter could have been as simple as a few sentences indicating withdrawal and its timetable but instead May fills it with pure fantasy like this:

    “The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation.

    To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. ”

    The EU negotiating team has not been granted any powers to discuss trade and never will be- anything they negotiate on trade will be immediately rejected by the EU Parliament. Even if that hadn’t been the case, it would have automatically resulted in a EU vote with veto powers rather than QMV. That would have been a nightmare for the UK to negotiate anything at all. They really don’t get it, do they?

    All May has done is reiterate that she has no clue about the process whatsoever and made her government look foolish. First class clowning today.

    At least the UK press have finally cottoned on to this point. Better later than never, I suppose.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-angela-merkel-rejects-theresa-may-parallel-talks-a7656506.html

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m sure I read some time ago that no trade deals could be talked about until the “divorce” had been agreed. If I’m right then Mrs May knew already what Fr Dr Merkel was going to say.

      It makes sense too.

      You wouldn’t ever want to to be involved in negotiating in and out and the same time. How would you possibly know where you were?

      You can’t entangle yourself until you are untangled.

      I don’t think any of the four of them (May, Davis, Johnson, Fox) have the foggiest idea what this is about, or how it works.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. They really haven’t got a clue. The rest of the letter seems to be mainly threats about withdrawing from security agreements. Well done everyone involved for a great start at building alliances and trust.

        I read a fascinating article applying game theory to Brexit:

        http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/03/15/the-game-theory-of-brexit

        It lays out very clearly that the UK simply has no control over what is about to happen to it. The best theoretical outcome is still worse than the deal we had until around lunchtime today.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. So she’s done it then. She has really gone and pushed that bloody button then!

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101639850456727702167/album/6403014236367006593/6403014232814335138?authkey=CPiq0MXVirjl_gE

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/101639850456727702167/album/6403014236367006593/6403014233095687506?authkey=CPiq0MXVirjl_gE

    Think I’ll leave this here for wee Mayhem I think she will definitely need one in the next two years, LOL

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You really wouldn’t think that based on what I was hearing on the world service last night. They are still talking about how England has the EU over a barrel.

      I’m failing to see why.

      One of the questions I would put to anyone who doubts Scotland’s ability to go it alone is: if Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Finland can not only do it, but do it well, why would Scotland be such a basket case?

      Like

  3. good link jim was right about uk debt and will fight tooth and nail to keep scotland in the uk.
    especially since finding new oil field new vows and promises anyone@

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It worries me that people seem to think that all we have is oil.

      Or that oil is incredibly important for a country to have.

      We all know that if the oil had not been used to pay for mass unemployment and wars we could have been living in Norwegian style, but that opportunity has been missed.

      However, successful countries like Denmark managed to have massively high standards of living without any significant oil. Why would Scotland be so incapable of that? Are Danes just cleverer than Scots?

      Like

      1. I’m lucky to live in a country with zero natural resources that is much, much wealthier than the UK. I think it all comes down to public investment. Rich countries have excellent public transport, pay their teachers a high salary, mend the roads properly etc. This all pays off but not immediately. The UK manages to be a rich country with the public infrastructure of a much poorer one.

        Scotland has a chance to do it differently. In order to be more like Denmark or Austria it will need to raise and uses public money the way it is done in Denmark and Austria. That just means spending it wisely (not on trident, not on foreign military adventures, and not giving it away to government contractors ran by ex-Ministers). There is a commonality to the small, successful European countries that is easily copied. It means being in the EU, having a simpler and more equitable tax regime (especially corporation tax), low spending on the military, high spending on tech, research and infrastructure. I’m not saying it is easy but there are enough data points around the EU to draw conclusions and implement what we know works.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It would be hard for the UK to do that.

        It would have to give up on the idea that it still runs the world; still is important; still counts.

        Would be easier for Scotland. I don’t think even the most British Tory Scot thinks that we’d be anything more important in world terms than Denmark or Iceland.

        But that’s fine becasue, as you point out, in Iceland and Denmark… and other small countries, the governments, not having to run around at the beck and call of America, not having to spend billions on weapons, or doing up royal houses, actually manages to find time for, as Ruth or Kezia would say, the day job.

        No. It’s not easy. But with the help that we would get from friends, I’m pretty sure we’d make a good fist of it.

        Like

  4. It’s interesting that you highlight the constitutional position set out in the EU Referendum Bill.

    It’s very unlikely, but it’s just possible that Tusk might reject reject the article 50 letter that Theresa May sent. He should. At the very least, rather than reject it out of hand, he could delay its acceptance seeking clarity and if necessary a formal legal judgement.
    In the very first paragraph of Article 50 it is clear and explicit that leaving the leaving the EU by this mechanism has to be done in accordance with the constitution of the member state that wants to leave.
    It’s not clear to me that requirement of a valid Article 50 application has been met. The UK is itself a union, and its constitution complex but what is clear is that the constitution of the UK contains elements that are derived from the pre-existing nation states. The 1707 Act specifically and explicitly preserved and protected some parts of that. Article 50 may well be in accordance with the English constitutional principle of the sovereignty of parliament , but it fails to meet the Scottish constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the people. I accept the judgement of the Supreme Court that the UK Government does not legally have to consult the Scottish Government under the so called Sewel convention arrangements, but what I do not accept is that the will of the Scottish people can be ignored and disregarded. This isn’t politics or convention, this is a fundamental constitutional principle.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I see what you are saying. The British constitution is of course, one of these “gentlemen’s agreements” things, because, unlike everyone else, British people don;t need it all written down, because clearly, they are better than other people and British values mean that they would never take advantage of the fact that the constitution is whatever the people at the top want it to be. Oh no, sir. Not the Brits. They are but one step from being god!

      Truth is of course that time after time they bent the constitution to what they want it to be, and if the constitutional lawyers disagree, some thug gets them against a wall and persuades them towards the ‘correct’ definitions. Eh, Mr Campbell?

      I believe that Scotland MUST have a written constitution.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s